Re: [Webtransport] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: (with BLOCK)

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Thank you. We'll send out updated text soon, probably tomorrow
due to time zone differences.

David

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 2:42 PM Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 6, 2020, at 8:36 AM, David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Alissa, thank you for the review - responses inline.
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:34 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>> charter-ietf-webtrans-00-00: Block
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-webtrans/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BLOCK:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Based on the responses to Magnus' comment I think there are two issues to
>> sort
>> out before proceeding further.
>>
>> 1) Whether the API is creating requirements for the protocol, or the
>> protocol
>> is creating requirements for the API. The charter is written as if the
>> situation is the former, but the list mail points towards the latter. The
>> charter should be clear about this before it goes out for external review.
>>
>
> The intention is for the API to create requirements on the protocol.
> We'll clarify the text to make this more explicit.
>
> 2) It sounds like there is still some chance that the change control for
>> the
>> API shifts from the W3C to the WHATWG. Would this group re-charter (or
>> close)
>> if that happens, or would it be better to make the charter more
>> generically
>> tied to the API but not to its change controller?
>>
>
> That's a good point. We'll replace all mentions of "W3C" with something
> like
> "the owner of the API". That way, the details of interactions between W3C
> and WHATWG (and also internal changes in those organizations) become
> opaque to this WG.
>
>
>> Please keep the IESG on cc on all replies. Thanks.
>>
>
> Would these edits be satisfactory?
>
>
> Yes, thanks.
> Alissa
>
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>
>